------- Additional Comments From kst at mib dot org 2005-07-27 01:54 -------
Oh, I agree completely that making string literals const
(as they are in C++) would make more sense. The reason they
aren't defined that way in C is that by the time "const" was
added to the language, there was too much code that would be
broken by the change. For example, given
void func(char *s);
the call
func("hello");
would be a constraint violation if string literals were const.
(As it is, it's merely dangerous, causing undiagnosed undefined
behavior if func attempts to modify the string.)
But all this is beside the point. I get the same warning
messages with this:
void foo(void)
{
const signed char *ps = "signed?";
const unsigned char *pu = "unsigned?";
}
Plain char, unsigned char, and signed char are all compatible,
in the sense that you can use a value of any of the three
types to initialize an object of any of the three types
(possibly with an implicit conversion).
But because they are all distinct types, pointers to those types
are distinct and incompatible types.
The correct warning message should be
"initialization from incompatible pointer type",
the same message produced for the initialization of lptr in
the following:
void bar(void)
{
int i = 42;
long l = i; /* ok, implicit conversion */
int *iptr = &i;
long *lptr = iptr; /* incompatible types */
}
even though int and long happen to have the same representation
on the system I'm using, just as char and signed char happen
to have the same representation.
The initializations of ps and pu in foo() are invalid,
but this has nothing to do with signedness or constness;
it's just because the types are incompatible.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
